Connect with us
Advertisement

Jesus Snubs Judas

Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER…

The two were vying for the same position and Jesus’s stance drove a wedge between them

Simon Peter is today the most famous of Jesus’s disciples. As an apostle, he is overall only second to Paul in prominence. Yet in Jesus’s day, he did not enjoy the prestige he does today. Peter was impetuous, with a combustible temperament. Even later in the noon of his life when he was the prime mover in the founding of the church of Rome, his methods were crude and unorthodox, an echo of the exact manner in which he related to Jesus. In the Josephus corpus, where he is referred to as Simon Bar Giora, his bare-knuckle ecclesiastical approach is well-documented.


Peter easily picked up quarrels with his boss, Jesus, and hated women who were frequently in Jesus’s entourage – such as Mary Magdalene, for instance – like the plague. In the apocryphal Gospel of Phillip, he is quoted as saying, “Women are not worthy of life”.


Yet for all his eccentricities, a tender and long-suffering Jesus loved and prized him essentially for two reasons. First, he was resolute, a go-getter. Second, he was very dedicated to Jesus and was a great crusader. He was a riveting, if propagandistic public speaker. Third, and perhaps most importantly, he was Jesus’s chief bodyguard.  His major weaknesses other than those cited above was that he was fickle, operated on a very short fuse, and could be curt and confrontational. As Jesus’s principal minder, he was always armed as even the gospels indicate. His generally uncouth behavior stemmed from his being, like his brother Andrew, a uneducated simple villager.


Like Judas Iscariot, Simon Zealotes, and Theudas Barabbas, Simon Peter was a Zealot. We know this both from his affinity for arms (the sword) and his very name. He was sometimes hilariously referred to as Simon Bar-Jona (MATTHEW 16:17), wrongly translated in the doctored modern versions of the New Testament as “Simon son of John”. Bar-Jona, however, derives from the Aramaic word “Baryona”, meaning “outlaw” or “terrorist”.  Zealots were referred to as terrorists by the Romans as well as peace-loving Jews.


The gospels seem to suggest that Jesus designated Simon Peter as the bedrock of his church, the reason he gave him a new surname “Peter” or “Cephas”, both of which mean “rock”. Whilst it is true that Jesus did proclaim Peter as his evangelical heir (his designated dynastic heir was his third-born  brother Joses), the name Peter could have been conferred on the basis of his tough-man demeanour  (a “Rocky” in today’s language) or his being Jesus’s metaphorical rock, that is, his main protector as bodyguard.


Simon Peter and Andrew were originally disciples of  John the Baptist. After Jesus’s split from the Baptist, Jesus lured them to join him particularly that they were compulsive evangelists. Andrew for one may not have been as rousing a public figure as Peter but he was a dynamic soul-winner. He was always bringing people to Jesus to meet him on a one-on-one basis.

THE SONS OF “THUNDER”

Like Andrew and Peter, James and John were brothers and the youngest of the 12.  They were Hebraised Romans, having been born as illegitimate kids to Julia, Caesar Augustus’s only natural daughter, and brought up in Judea. The names John and James were either acquired or ascribed. Their real names were Aquila (John) and Niceta (James). The Aquila you read about in Acts, whose wife was Priscilla,   was actually John (he was not killed by the “Holy Spirit” through Simon Peter as the English translation  suggests: in pesher, the term “kill” sometimes means “excommunicate” or “demote”, which is what actually happened to Aquila and Priscilla).


Of the two factions in the Jesus party, John and James initially were loyal to the “Lightning” faction, the one headed by Simon  Zealotes. This is because they were his adopted sons, having been sold to his mistress Helena-Salome by Julia through a middle man slave trader when they were young. Simon Zealotes also went by the name Zebedee, meaning “My Gift”.

Hence, James and John were alternatively addressed as the “Sons of Zebedee”). Later, when Jonathan Annas (Nathaniel) became the Father (that is, the chief  Essene priest) after the demotion of Simon  Zealotes, James and John switched their allegiance to him. Nathaniel was the leader of the “Thunder” faction in the Jesus party and so James and John accordingly became the “Sons of  Thunder” after Nathaniel  designated them as his spiritual sons.


Curiously, James and John were senior to Peter and Andrew when it came to baptismal roles despite their being Gentiles. James and John were ordained “fishers”, whereas Peter and Andrew were lay “fishermen”. These terms do not carry the meaning popularly attributed to them – that of people whose trade was catching literal fish. It was all imagery, part of the Essene’s secret jargon.

“Fish’ was a term for celibate Gentiles, who when they were being baptised had to be hauled up in large nets onto a boat stationed on the Dead Sea not far from the shore. The “Fishers” were the priests who conducted the baptism, a class to which John and James belonged, and the “Fishermen “(a category in which Peter and Andrew fell)   were those who aided the baptismal candidates into the boat. When Jesus told Andrew and Peter upon “poaching” them from John the Baptist that “Follow me and I’ll make you fishers of men”, all he simply meant  was that he would in due course promote them to baptismal priests.


Peter, Andrew, James, and John constituted the quartet who accompanied Jesus on evangelical missions much of the time as being without executive duties like the sort the Top 6 we talked about last week had, they had plenteous time to spare. Noting that Jesus seemed to gravitate more to Peter and Andrew, Helena-Salome, the step mother of John and James, at one time set out to promote them to Jesus as his two left and right-hand pillars in a liberated Kingdom of Israel (Helena-Salome also took account of the fact that she was related to Jesus as we shall demonstrate in due course). Jesus’s response was that that recommendation had to come from the “Father” of the day, who at the time was Nathaniel.   

BERT AND PHIL
The two leading Gentiles in the Jesus party  were Bartholomew and Phillip. According to the secular Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, Bartholomew’s real name was Eutychus, a name by which he appears in certain passages in the gospels. As an evangelist, however, he was known as John Marcus. It was he who sponsored the gospel according to Mark. He was very close to Simon Peter and in due course became his evangelical deputy, and not his “disciple” as some historians wrongly document.

In his first epistle, Simon Peter refers to John Marcus as “my son” (1 PETER 5:13). As we have already pointed out, “son” often meant “deputy” or “would-be successor”. John Marcus was also useful in Paul’s ministry (2 TIMOTHY 4:11) although initially the two had a tumultuous relationship.  His nickname of Bartholomew (meaning “servant of Ptolemy”) derived from the fact that he was attached to the influential Egyptian Theraputae at Qumran. Ptolemy was a Greek general who took over Egypt following the death of Alexander the Great.


Phillip was one of Jesus’s favourite disciples and a keen evangelist. In the Jesus party, he belonged to the Thunder faction and was very close to Nathaniel as a result.


So what characteristics do we see about the 12 principal assistants of Jesus Christ? They were a mixed bunch. They comprised of Zealots (Judas Iscariot, Simon Magus, Theudas Barabbas,  and Simon Peter); aristocrats (Nathaniel, Matthew, and Thomas); Gentiles (James, John, Phillip, and Mark); intellectuals (Judas Iscariot); simple village men (Simon Peter and Andrew); and Samaritans  (Simon Magus and Theudas Barabbas). The senior six, headed by Simon Zealotes, were Jesus’s associates, whereas the junior six, headed by Simon Peter, were his disciples (ministerial students) proper.

JUDAS COURTS JESUS

Now that Jesus had been baptised by John the Baptist (that is, commissioned into service as a public ministry rabbi), it was decided that he be initiated into deeper Essene secrets. The most sacred Essene secret was that of Gnosis. Gnosis was not availed to everybody just because they were Essenes: it was imparted only to a select few, those in the higher echelons.


Gnosis is the term from which the English word knowledge is derived. But Gnosis was not simply ordinary knowledge or any kind of knowledge for that matter: it was knowledge about metaphysics and the spirit world, also called the Kingdom of God. Gnosis taught that not only was man primarily spirit but he was also a god in that his spirit was  a fragment from the very essence of the real God.

Thus even when he was in this physical world, man was capable of visiting the spirit world, a phenomenon known as astral projection. The spirit  world could be accessed through  the Third  Eye, also known as the Eye of the Needle. This is the 6th chakra, located behind the forehead between the physical eyes. People who do not know the importance of the 6th Chakra “perish for lack of knowledge” (HOSEA 4:6), that is, lack of Gnosis primarily.   


The person who was to initiate Jesus into Gnosis was Judas Iscariot, who was the authority on the subject along with Simon  Zealotes. The familiar image of Judas is that of the very scum of the Earth but in his time, he was a very highly regarded and respected figure.  Judas was the Essenes’ chief scribe by virtue of  his encyclopaedic knowledge. Initiates into Gnosis were subjected to intensive instruction at Qumran (referred to as the “wilderness” in the gospels) after which a rigorous test was administered to them by Judas. It was something akin to a test one is subjected to when defending a thesis or dissertation but before a one-man panel. Since Judas conducted these tests, he was called the Satan.


The word Satan had several meanings. Depending on the context, it could mean accuser (one example of which was when Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Get behind me Satan” [MATTHEW 16:23]);  adversary;  or what we today call a devil’s advocate – that is, somebody whose duty is to broach the worst scenarios possible as food for strategic thought. Another meaning  was that of a “lie detector”. The latter was in fact the original  meaning of the style Satan (Set-En, meaning  “Truth Lord”, a role played by Enki’s great  grandson Set after he defected from the Enkite clan and joined the Enlilite clan.  Enlil, the Jehovah of the Bible, assigned him to test those who were changing loyalties from the Enkite  faction to the Enlite faction so as to ensure they were not undercover agents of the Enkites.)


Judas was called Satan because his  role was akin to that of a Truth Lord, to test initiates into Gnosis  with a view to ensure they were well-grounded in it and also that they would not be susceptible to betraying the secrets they had been taught. According to the gospels, the instruction took 40 days but that is just a symbolic manner: it in all probability took longer than that and entailed abstinence from eating at certain intervals.    


When testing Jesus, however, Judas decided to make political capital out of this closed-door opportunity. Although he was tipped to be Chancellor of the Exchequer in an independent Israel as well a Jewish-ruled world empire, Judas wasn’t content with such a position as it was effectively No. 3. He wanted the position of High Priest. In AD 29, the de facto Essene High Priest, a dynastic position, was John the Baptist and was tipped to be the universal High Priest in an independent Israel. But signs were that very soon the Baptist would be toppled and the three frontrunners for his position were Simon Zealotes, Nathaniel, and Judas himself, considering that the Baptist had no heirs.  


Since Jesus was the future King of Israel and global emperor and therefore carried enormous clout potentially, Judas decided to elicit from him mutually beneficial favours. First, he asked for endorsement for the position of Essene High Priest, that is, that of “Arch-Angel Michael”.  Judas would in return elevate Jesus from his present position as the “Sariel”, which was 3rd, to that of “Moses”, also called “Angel Gabriel”, which was 2nd. 

Second, Judas promised to appoint Jesus as the “Son” if Jesus supported him as Pope once the Baptist was ousted. Jesus had been the Son (the deputy to the Father/Pope that was the Baptist) but John the Baptist had given that position to James, his younger brother, after the split. Finally, Judas said he would rally behind Jesus as the King of Israel and emperor of the world at the expense of James, who now was a contender, if Jesus in turn supported him for the position of national High Priest. This effectively would make Jesus Judas’s No.2, just as the Iranian President is subordinate to the Ayatollah, the spiritual leader of the entire nation.


Jesus politely turned down all the three propositions by Judas. First, Nathaniel was the rightful linear successor to the Baptist as Pope (an elective position). Second, Judas did not qualify to be the Essene High Priest or national High Priest as he was not a descendent of Aaron although he was a Levite. Thirdly and most importantly, Jesus himself was aiming at combining the positions of High Priest and King as he was both a descendent of David (from his father’s side) and a descendent of Aaron (from his mother’s side).


Judas was wroth. From that point onwards, he nurtured a deep-seated  bitterness towards Jesus that  largely accounted for the  infamous betrayal four years later. The exchanges between the two are recorded in the sections of the synoptic gospels commonly referred to as the Temptation (MATTHEW 4:1-11; MARK 1:12-13; and LUKE 4:1-13). The exact nature of the conversation is encrypted and can only be deciphered using the pesher device courtesy of  its discoverer Dr Barbara Theiring.          

NEXT WEEK: HORROR AT A CASTLE

Continue Reading

Columns

DIS Parley Committee selection disingenuous 

25th November 2020

Intelligence and Security Service Act, which is a law that establishes the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Service (DIS), provides for establishment of a Parliamentary Committee. Recently, the President announced nine names of Members of Parliament he had appointed to the Committee.

This announcement was preceded by a meeting the President held with the Speaker and the Leader of Opposition. Following the announcement of Committee MPs by the President, the opposition, through its leader, made it clear that it will not participate in the Committee unless certain conditions that would ensure effective oversight are met. The opposition acted on the non-participation threat through resignation of its three MPs from the Committee.

The Act at Section 38 provides for the establishment of the Committee to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Directorate. The law provides that the Parliamentary Committee shall have the same powers and privileges set out under the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.

On composition, the Committee shall consist of nine members who shall not be members of Cabinet and its quorum shall be five members.  The MPs in the Committee elect a chairperson from among their number at their first meeting.

The Members of the Committee are appointed by the President after consultation with the Speaker of the National Assembly and Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly. It is the provision of the law that the Committee, relative to its size, reflect the numerical strengths of the political parties represented in the National Assembly.

The Act provides that that a member of the Committee holds office for the duration of the Parliament in which he or she is appointed.  The Committee is mandated to make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the President and may at any time report to him or her on any matter relating to the discharge of those functions.

The Minister responsible for intelligence and security is obliged to lay before the National Assembly a copy of each annual report made by the Committee together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of the provision of the Act.

If it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Parliamentary Committee, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Directorate, the Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before the National Assembly.

So, what are the specific demands of the Opposition and why are they not participating in the Committee? What should happen as a way forward? The Opposition demanded that there be a forensic audit of the Directorate. The DIS has never been audited since it was set up in 2008, more than a decade ago.

The institution has been a law unto itself for a longtime, feared by all oversight bodies. The Auditor General, who had no security of tenure, could not audit the DIS. The Directorate’s personnel, especially at a high level, have been implicated in corruption.  Some of its operatives are in courts of law defending corruption charges preferred against them. Some of the corruption cases which appeared in the media have not made it to the courts.

The DIS has been accused of non-accountability and unethical practices as well as of being a burden on the fiscus.  So, the Opposition demanded, from the President, a forensic audit for the purpose of cleaning up the DIS.  They demand a start from a clean slate.

The second demand by the Opposition is that the law be reviewed to ensure greater accountability of the DIS to Parliament. What are some of the issues that the opposition think should be reviewed? The contention is that the executive cannot appoint a Committee of Parliament to scrutinize an executive institution.

Already, it is argued, Parliament is less independent and it is dominated by the executive. It is contended that the Committee should be established by the Standing Orders and be appointed by a Select Committee of Parliament. There is also an argument that the Committee should report to Parliament and not to the President and that the Minister should not have any role in the Committee.

Democratic and Parliamentary oversight of the intelligence is relatively a new phenomenon across the World. Even developed democracies are still grappling with some of these issues. However, there are acceptable standards or what might be called international best practices which have evolved over the past two or so decades.

In the UK for instance, MPs of the Intelligence and Security Committee are appointed by the Houses of Parliament, having been nominated by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. This is a good balancing exercise of involvement of both the executive and the legislature. Consultation is taken for granted in Botswana context in the sense that it has been reduced to just informing the Leader of Opposition without much regard to his or her ideas; they are never taken seriously.

Furthermore, the current Committee in the UK has four Members of the ruling party and five MPs from the opposition. It is a fairly balanced Committee in terms of Parliamentary representation. However, as said above, the President of Botswana appointed six ruling party MPs and three from the opposition.

The imbalance is preposterous and more pronounced with clear intentions of getting the executive way through the ruling party representatives in the Committee. The intention to avoid scrutiny is clear from the numbers of the ruling party MPs in the Committee.

There is also an international standard of removing sensitive parts which may harm national security from the report before it is tabled in the legislature. The previous and current reluctance of the executive arms to open up on Defence and Security matters emanate from this very reason of preserving and protecting national security.

But national security should be balanced with public interest and other democratic principles. The decision to expunge certain information which may be prejudicial to national security should not be an arbitrary and exclusive decision of the executive but a collective decision of a well fairly balanced Committee in consultation with the Speaker and the minister responsible.

There is no doubt that the DIS has been a rogue institution. The reluctance by the President to commit to democratic-parliamentary oversight reforms presupposes a lack of commitment to democratization. The President has no interest in seeing a reformed DIS with effective oversight of the agency.

He is insincere. This is because the President loathes the idea losing an iota of power and sharing it with any other democratic institution. He sees the agency as his power lever to sustain his stay in the high office. He thought he could sanitize himself with an ineffective DIS Committee that would dance to his tune.

The non-participation of the opposition MPs renders the Committee dysfunctional; it cannot function as this would be unlawful. Participation of the opposition is a legal requirement. Even if it can meet, it would lack legitimacy; it cannot be taken seriously. The President should therefore act on the oversight demands and reform the DIS if he is to be taken seriously.

Continue Reading

Columns

The Maccabean Uprising

25th November 2020
Jewish freedom fighters

 Jews drive away occupying power under the command of guerrilla leader Judas Maccabees but only just

Although it was the Desolation Sacrilege act, General Atiku, that officially sparked the Maccabean revolt, it in truth simply stoked the fires of an already simmering revolution. How so General?

This content is locked

Login To Unlock The Content!

 

Continue Reading

Columns

Atomic (CON)Fusion

25th November 2020

For years I have trained people about paradigm shifts – those light-bulb-switch-on moments – where there is a seismic change from the usual way of thinking about something to a newer, better way. 

I like to refer to them as ‘aha’ moments because of the sudden understanding of something which was previously incomprehensible. However,  the topic of today’s article is the complete antithesis of ‘aha’.  Though I’d love to tell you I’d had a ‘eureka ‘, ‘problem solved’ moment, I am faced with the complete opposite – an ‘oh-no’ moment or Lost Leader Syndrome.

No matter how well prepared or capable a leader is. they often find themselves facing perplexing events, confounding information, or puzzling situations. Confused by developments of which they can’t make sense and by challenges that they don’t know how to solve they become confused, sometimes lost and completely clueless about what to do.

I am told by Jentz and Murphy (JM) in ‘What leaders do when they don’t know what to do’ that this is normal, and that rapid change is making confusion a defining feature of management in the 21st century.  Now doesn’t that sound like the story of 2020 summed up in a single sentence?

The basic premise of their writing is that “confusion is not a weakness to be ashamed of but a regular and inevitable condition of leadership. By learning to embrace their confusion, managers are able to set in motion a constructive process for addressing baffling issues.

In fact, confusion turns out to be a fruitful environment in which the best managers thrive by using the instability around them to open up better lines of communication, test their old assumptions and values against changing realities, and develop more creative approaches to problem solving.”

The problem with this ideology however is that it doesn’t help my overwhelming feelings of fear and panic which is exacerbated by a tape playing on a loop in my head saying  ‘you’re supposed to know what to do, do something’. My angst is compounded by annoying motivational phrases also unhelpfully playing in my head like.

  • Nothing happens until something moves
  • The secret of getting ahead is getting started

and

  • Act or be acted upon

All these platitudes are urging me to pull something out of the bag, but I know that this is a trap. This need to forge ahead is nothing but a coping mechanism and disguise. Instead of owning the fact that I haven’t got a foggy about what to do, part of me worries that I’ll lose authority if I acknowledge that I can’t provide direction – I’m supposed to know the answers, I’m the MD!  This feeling of not being in control is common for managers in ‘oh no’ situations and as a result they often start reflexively and unilaterally attempting to impose quick fixes to restore equilibrium because, lets be honest, sometimes we find it hard to resist hiding our confusion.

To admit that I am lost in an “Oh, No!” moment opens the door not only to the fear of losing authority but also to a plethora of other troubling emotions and thoughts:  *Shame and loss of face: “You’ll look like a fool!” * Panic and loss of control: “You’ve let this get out of hand!” * Incompetence and incapacitation: “You don’t know what you’re doing!”

As if by saying “I’m at a loss here” is tantamount to declaring “I am not fit to lead.” Of course the real problem for me and any other leader is if they don’t admit when they are disoriented, it sends a signal to others in the organisation stating it’s not cool to be lost and that, by its very nature encourages them to hide.  What’s the saying about ‘a real man never asks for direction. ..so they end up driving around in circles’.

As managers we need to embrace the confusion, show vulnerability (remember that’s not a bad word) and accept that leadership is not about pretending to have all the answers but about having the courage to search with others to discover a solution.

JM point out that “being confused, however, does not mean being incapacitated.  Indeed, one of the most liberating truths of leadership is that confusion is not quicksand from which to escape but rather the potter’s clay of leadership – the very stuff with which managers can work.”

2020 has certainly been a year to remember and all indications are that the confusion which has characterised this year will still follow us into the New Year, thereby making confusion a defining characteristic of the new normal and how managers need to manage. Our competence as leaders will then surely be measured not only by ‘what I know’ but increasingly by ‘how I behave when I accept, I don’t know, lose my sense of direction and become confused.

.I guess the message for all organizational cultures going forward is that sticking with the belief that we need all-knowing, omni-competent executives will cost them dearly and send a message to managers that it is better to hide their confusion than to address it openly and constructively.

Take comfort in these wise words ‘Confusion is a word we have invented for an order not yet understood’!

Continue Reading
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!